Majid Maybody1, Peter Q Tang2, Chaya S Moskowitz3, Meier Hsu3, Hooman Yarmohammadi4, F Edward Boas4. 1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY, USA. maybodym@mskcc.org. 2. State University of New York School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pneumodissection is described as a simple method for preventing skin injury during cryoablation of superficial musculoskeletal tumours. METHODS: Superficial tumour cryoablations performed from 2009 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Pneumodissection was performed in 13 patients when the shortest tumour-skin distance was less than 25 mm. Indications were pain palliation (n = 9) and local tumour control (n = 4). Patients, target tumours, technical characteristics and complications up to 60 days post ablation were reviewed. The ice ball-skin distances with and without pneumodissection were compared by a paired t-test and further assessed for association with covariates using ANCOVA. RESULTS: Technical success for ablation was 12 of 13. The mean shortest tumour-skin distance was 15.0 mm (3.2-24.5 mm). The mean thickness of pneumodissection was 9.6 mm (5.2-16.6 mm) resulting in mean elevation of skin of 3.4 mm (1.2-5.3 mm). Mean shortest ice ball-skin distance after pneumodissection was 10.5 mm (4.2-19.7 mm). No infection or systemic air embolism was noted. No intraprocedural frostbite was observed. CONCLUSION: Pneumodissection is feasible, effective and safe in protecting the skin during image-guided cryoablation of superficial tumours. KEY POINTS: • Frostbite during image-guided cryoablation of superficial tumours is commonly under-reported. • Frostbites are painful and may introduce infection into the superficial ablation zone. • Warm compress, saline and CO 2 have shortcomings in protecting the skin. • Pneumodissection is free, readily available, easy to use and safe and effective.
PURPOSE: Pneumodissection is described as a simple method for preventing skin injury during cryoablation of superficial musculoskeletal tumours. METHODS: Superficial tumour cryoablations performed from 2009 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Pneumodissection was performed in 13 patients when the shortest tumour-skin distance was less than 25 mm. Indications were pain palliation (n = 9) and local tumour control (n = 4). Patients, target tumours, technical characteristics and complications up to 60 days post ablation were reviewed. The ice ball-skin distances with and without pneumodissection were compared by a paired t-test and further assessed for association with covariates using ANCOVA. RESULTS: Technical success for ablation was 12 of 13. The mean shortest tumour-skin distance was 15.0 mm (3.2-24.5 mm). The mean thickness of pneumodissection was 9.6 mm (5.2-16.6 mm) resulting in mean elevation of skin of 3.4 mm (1.2-5.3 mm). Mean shortest ice ball-skin distance after pneumodissection was 10.5 mm (4.2-19.7 mm). No infection or systemic air embolism was noted. No intraprocedural frostbite was observed. CONCLUSION: Pneumodissection is feasible, effective and safe in protecting the skin during image-guided cryoablation of superficial tumours. KEY POINTS: • Frostbite during image-guided cryoablation of superficial tumours is commonly under-reported. • Frostbites are painful and may introduce infection into the superficial ablation zone. • Warm compress, saline and CO 2 have shortcomings in protecting the skin. • Pneumodissection is free, readily available, easy to use and safe and effective.
Authors: Richard H Marshall; Edward K Avila; Stephen B Solomon; Joseph P Erinjeri; Majid Maybody Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Matthew R Callstrom; Damian E Dupuy; Stephen B Solomon; Robert A Beres; Peter J Littrup; Kirkland W Davis; Ricardo Paz-Fumagalli; Cheryl Hoffman; Thomas D Atwell; J William Charboneau; Grant D Schmit; Matthew P Goetz; Joseph Rubin; Kathy J Brown; Paul J Novotny; Jeff A Sloan Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael V Friedman; Travis J Hillen; Daniel E Wessell; Charles F Hildebolt; Jack W Jennings Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-07-23 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Brendan P McMenomy; A Nicholas Kurup; Geoffrey B Johnson; Rickey E Carter; Robert R McWilliams; Svetomir N Markovic; Thomas D Atwell; Grant D Schmit; Jonathan M Morris; David A Woodrum; Adam J Weisbrod; Peter S Rose; Matthew R Callstrom Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2012-12-20 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: F Edward Boas; Govindarajan Srimathveeravalli; Jeremy C Durack; Elena A Kaye; Joseph P Erinjeri; Etay Ziv; Majid Maybody; Hooman Yarmohammadi; Stephen B Solomon Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Majid Maybody; Mohamed M Soliman; Sinchun Hwang; Adrian Gonzalez-Aguirre; Ernesto G Santos Martin; Elena Kaye; Meier Hsu; Chaya Moskowitz; John H Healey; Nicola Fabbri Journal: SN Compr Clin Med Date: 2020-09-14